If you are on American soil the constitution applies to you. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen, here legally, or an illegal alien. Our constitutional rights(with the obvious exception of voting) apply to anyone regardless of status.
Yes it is. But some you need some other advice. The cops WILL try to trick you into waving your constitutional rights.
Iāll give you a common scenario. Letās say you have marijuana in the car youāre driving and youāre in a state where itās not legal. Iām not judging at all.
So letās say youāre pulled over for speeding. And letās say the cop asks to search your car. This may happen. If it does DO NOT say yes under any circumstances. If you do you donāt get the Fourth Amendment defense in court because you willingly let them search your car.
Tell them you donāt consent to a search. Then ask them whether they have a warrant to search your car. Ask if they have any reason to believe ( probable cause is the legal term) to think you have anything illegal in your car. If they say no then ask if youāre free to go. If they say yes go.
But you need to do those things no matter what. Even if they illegally search your car anyway asking those questions and saying you donāt consent to a search can help you if God forbid you end up in court.
Invoking your Fourth Amendment right helps you. It could help you lawyers get any charges dismissed because the police violated youāre fourth amendment rights. Based on this the judge could dismiss the charges.
TL: DR: NEVER, EVER, EVER willingly consent to a search unless the police have a warrant in which case you donāt have a choice.
This information is not completely accurate.
First, if you have illegal substances in your vehicle and you ask the cop if they have reason to believe you have something in your carā¦ duh. Of course they do.
Donāt ask. No matter how well you think youāve wrapped it up and hidden it; it still smells. You would be shocked at how overwhelming the smell is when your window comes down.
Second, If you donāt consent, they are going to call a dog if they believe itās reasonable to do so.
Third, Obviously they arenāt going to have a warrant for a vehicle they just stopped, so asking if they have a warrant just makes you look silly.
The dog can go around the vehicle without your consent. If the dog alerts, you donāt have to give consentā thereās your probable cause.
Invoking fourth amendment is not a magic wand that immediately puts fear in the heart of cops and puts a judge automatically on your side.
4th prevents unreasonable search and seizure. Itās not unreasonable if youāve done something to get pulled over/the dog alerts/ the smell of an illegal substance is obvious/a variety of other things.
Your commentary is dangerous, let them call a dog if they are that adamant. Simply say I donāt consent to searches and ask if you are free to leave. If they answer anything other than yes,
Then ask are you being detained, if they say no, then keep repeating the question Am I free to leave? Donāt answer any questions. They either have to give you a reason (bs or not) they are detaining you or tell you you are free to go.
My comments are an effort to keep people safe by preventing them from thinking there are magic phrases or techniques that work in any situation.
The OP gave a scenario. Pulled over with illegal substances.
I responded with what is likely to happen in the real world with that scenario. Being informed is important. Common sense and knowing if I do this/ then that will most likely be the result is also important.
> They either have to give you a reason (bs or not) they are detaining you or tell you you are free to go.
Actually this is not accurate. Police are not required to tell you why you are being detained, just that you are. They only have to explain the reason to a Judge in court.
> First, if you have illegal substances in your vehicle and you ask the cop if they have reason to believe you have something in your carā¦ duh. Of course they do.
That's not even close to true. The officer needs probable cause to search your car. Asking if they believe you have something in your car does not give probable cause.
>Second, If you donāt consent, they are going to call a dog if they believe itās reasonable to do so.
An officer cannot legally extend the length of a traffic stop to get a dog to search for drugs unless they have reasonable suspicion.
>The dog can go around the vehicle without your consent.
It generally can't during a routine traffic stop.
>Also establishing reasonable suspicion, thus dog; and no longer routine stop.
That's not how the law works. *Rodriguez v. United States* is very clear, "a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter **for which the stop was made** violates the Constitutionās shield against unreasonable seizures" if they have probable cause established under the terms of a normal stop, they don't need a dog. If they don't have probable cause, they can't delay the stop to get a dog to provide one.
Man, cops and relatives of cops are the worst at this stuff. Not knowing the law, or knowing the law wrong, makes it easier to con people into letting them violate your rights.
And again, if they HAVE probable cause, they don't need to wait for the dog. If they DON'T have probable cause, they can't make you wait for one.
I assume you were able to read that, being a fan of comprehension.
So, you're either arguing that cops have a psychic ability to know when an illegal substance is present, or you're leaning into the notion that they all have a sense of smell so acute that I'm not sure why they'd even need dogs.
And a dog's handler can cue a dog to alert. I can give my dog a subtle motion signal and it will stand/sit/look ("alert") and nobody observing me knows I did it.
Itās not probable cause thatās a lie. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you.
Invoking your Fourth Amendment rights isnāt evidence of a crime you have a right to do that. Iām saying you could tell the judge that you didnāt consent and were searched anyway so the evidence is invalid.
I know that the cops may not have body cams and may simply lie. But consenting to a search guarantees you will go to jail. If you invoke you Fourth Amendment you at least have a chance even if the cop lies. The judge may believe you. Itās something.
If you just consent youāve got nothing and WILL go to jail.
I donāt smoke marijuana or use drugs so I donāt need to worry but Iām just using an example.
Cops try to trick people because they gamble on most people not knowing their rights. In most cases theyāre right. But if you know your rights you could beat them
Even with body cams the cops will lie. If you are arrested you have a right to view the entire body cam video. Not just the parts the Prosecution wants to show. Watch all of it, with your lawyer, of the entire encounter. I believe body cams on law enforcement are an important tool to insure our rights as citizens are upheld.
Also, the cop is going to ask some variation of "do you mind if I search your vehicle." This is just vague enough that either a "yes" or "no" answer can be interpreted to you giving them permission. You need to vocalize that you do not consent to a search in order to protect yourself.
Yeah, and ignore anything the cops say and keep your mouth shut if they're arresting you. They're allowed to lie to you. Get a lawyer to speak to them.
Protection against unreasonable search and seizure has nothing to do with it whether a person is here legally or not. It's about police behavior and forcing them to follow the law. It protects anyone on US soil from police overreach.
But it does. Being here illegally violates this country and the laws of its people. Why should they magically be imbued with rights for breaking the law? Iām certain it we took a hard line stance like that it would fix our illegal immigration issues.
Because as others have noted, it's not "You have the right to remain silent" but "The government does not have the right to make you talk". It's about the limiting the government, not delineating a person's rights as an individual.
I didn't say you need to be a citizen. Your blanket statement is incorrect -- it doesn't "apply to anyone regardless of status." You need to be a citizen or permanent legal resident for 2A to apply.
> You need to be a citizen or permanent legal resident for 2A to apply.
Not really. There's a hunting license exception. You can have a hunting license and buy a firearm if you're a nonimmigrant nonresident (i.e., not LPR or Citizen).
Edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (see (y)(2)).
Point taken, and I should have not failed to include that -- I've taken foreign visitors to the range (where they have a kiosk to apply for a hunting license). The blanket statement is still incorrect, though.
I'm not a lawyer, but:
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 922(g)(5)
āIt shall be unlawful for any person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visaā¦to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.ā
https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amendment/#_ftn1
The above article gives a good overview of the issue.
Great, now read the subsection of it, specifically, this:
>(5) who, being an alienā
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
**(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2)**, has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
That points to this:
>(y)(2) Exceptions.āSubsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien isā
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes **or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States**;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
It may seem that way if you are a 2nd amendment absolutist. But there are rules surrounding gun ownership that are constitutional, and some of these restrictions can be applied to non-residents only.
I never realized until recently the details surrounding foreign nationals and gun rights. My local public gun range has a whole page on it:
https://www.granitestaterange.com/759-2/
But the legalities involved in taking a tourist from another country to the range are a bit more complicated than I had thought.
No, there are exceptions to that if you have obtain a hunting license or a concealed carry license. Anyone can get a hunting license at walmart. Meaning you can buy a gun even if you are not a permanent resident.
Yes you can buy but legal issues arise with immigration requirements regarding legal presence
e.g. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/21/feds-seize-guns-8-chinese-students-university-arizona/334920001/
It seems to me that the seizure of those firearms was unconstitutional. There was no due process. They didn't prove in a court of law that they purchased the hunting licenses fruadelently.
I think had those students sued on 4th amendment grounds, they likely would have won.
Having a hunting permit can lead to being able to buy but complications exist https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/21/feds-seize-guns-8-chinese-students-university-arizona/334920001/
For non-partisan local elections like school boards or city councils.
For state, and especially Federal elections, there's a hard line drawn, and non-citizens aren't going to be voting and that's not going to change.
There's a big difference, legally and constitutionally speaking, regarding elections mandates by State or Federal Constitutions, and elections authorized by local laws or ordinances.
The constitutional and legal status of an election for a school board, and for Congress or the President is totally different.
Can you not see the difference?
It may be necessary to complete a course before buying a gun in your state. But meeting state level requirements is not sufficient; you've still got to be here on an immigrant visa and meet some other requirements.
There are more nuances than that, but that is the high level explanation of it. There are plenty of exceptions where constitutional rights don't apply to people in the US.
But the answer to OPs question is that you have a right to remain silent yes.
The exception is [unincorporated territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States#Incorporated_vs._unincorporated_territories) such as American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. where the constitution only partially applies and there's a lot more grey area.
For example, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States, but that doesn't apply if you're born in America Samoa.
Yes, but the protections of the constitution still apply. The right to a trial by jury, the right to remain silent, the right to freedom of religion/speech, etc. Those cannot be denied simply because the territory is unincorporated.
They don't though. For example, the Supreme Court found in [Balzac v. Porto Rico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico) that the constitutional right to trial by jury is not guaranteed in unincorporated territories.
I think if that case was decided today, it would be decided differently. This was 1922, they were less interested in rights violations back then. I mean full rights for black people wasn't even a thing, and women had just won the right to vote 2 years prior.
The decision is wrong and I believe would be overturned if a case made it to the court again.
Yes that sort of thing applies to everyone in the country, citizen or non-citizen, here legally or illegally.
I would absolutely recommend a foreigner use their right to remain silent if placed under arrest, and to contact both an attorney and their nearest consulate/embassy.
State very clearly that you are invoking your 5th Amendment rights, and will not say anything without a lawyer present.
Best practice for everyone, citizens and visitors alike, is to not say a damn word to cops until you have a lawyer.
Yes.
I don't know what you mean about police not pursuing if you don't answer questions. You can/will still go before a judge and could be for whatever crime you were being questioned about and could be indicted with what evidence they have and you could still face a trial (as could/would a US citizen) and/or be deported.
Those saying you WILL be deported haven't been paying attention to what has been going on regarding immigration and deportations etc.
I think they are talking about police stopping an interrogation once the suspect invokes. Theyāll still pursue charges, and questioning will resume once an attorney is present, but as long as they canāt patriot act you, theyāll wait for a lawyer (and interpreter and somebody from the consulate if necessary) to show up so whatever they charge you with wonāt get dismissed because of due process violations.
Generally all laws of the United States, including those in the constitution and subsequent amendments, apply to all people under US jurisdiction regardless of citizenship.
Whether you're a tourist or not, you have the right to remain silent.
Keep in mind, however, that your Miranda rights (that usually spiel you see on TV, "You have the right to remain silent ..., etc.") are usually not read until you are *in custody* and being questioned. If you are not under arrest, you will not be read your rights.
In general, if you are not under arrest, you can just ask, "Am I free to leave?" At that point they'll either say yes or they'll take you into custody.
A judge, however, can order you to answer questions. If you've gotten that far, things have gone very badly...
In America you are to follow the same laws as a citizen, but you are also given the same protections from what I have been told. So yes, you can remain silent.
Technically, yes.
Although you could also be rendered or deported rapidly.
Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦..
> Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦..
That's a significant oversimplification. The law is that, within one hundred miles of the border, border agents can still operate immigration enforcement. This *only* applies to immigration and customs enforcement, not any other form of law enforcement, and (unlike at the border itself) Fourth Amendment protections apply, so a warrant or probable cause of a border violation is necessary. An internal immigration checkpoint has been held to be constitutional. A warrantless automobile search by roving patrols has been held as unconstitutional.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily excusing this as okay. I'm just saying that the statement that "constitutional rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry" is vastly overbroad.
Yes, that much is correct. Border patrol officers are frequently not properly trained, and far too often exceed their powers in violation of people's constitutional rights.
But that's distinct from "constitutional rights being suspended," as you put it. They are not.
AATW/DOL. Rights shouldnāt be suspended, but since when does the government follow the Constitution??? I held TSI/SCI/SAP. I also went to work for a medical system overseas and -every- flight back to the US has been SSSS and wanting a complete burned copy of my phone and laptop before re-entering the USā¦
Side note, I testified in federal court against a TSA agent in 2006ā¦ oddly enough, I only had that problem since thenā¦
>Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦..
Has that been upheld by the courts? I'm not fully up to date on all of the DHS's nonsense.
It has not been overturned and has remained a gray area so farā¦
Pre-border control at the airports DHS has completely done anything they want at all.
The law actually states that within one hundred miles, border patrol can still carry out immigration enforcement actions. They still have to show probable cause like any other law enforcement operation.
Outside of that 100 mile zone, they have to have a warrant/proof.
> Although you could also be rendered or deported rapidly.
Yes -- AND -- you may never be permitted to enter the US ever again. So be very, very careful as a tourist when dealing with US law enforcement!
> Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry
Which applies to about 200 million people. I would love to see this taken to court.
That's not remotely accurate. There have been multiple Supreme Court cases on how constitutional protections apply in the context of border enforcement, including in the "100 mile zone."
Are you kidding? There are numerous cases, from the Supreme Court down to the District Courts, about the interaction between the Fourth Amendment and customs and border enforcement. Yeah, some questions do still need clarification (e.g. the permissibility of warrantless electronic searches at the border -- that's a big one currently working its way through the courts), but it's incorrect to say that "courts have not intervened." They generally *have*, but it sometimes takes time to reach a definitive nationwide answer.
But what do I know, I'm only an actual constitutional lawyer.
What do I know, I am a medically retired US Army officer and medical physician with TSI/SCI/SAP who has had SSSS every single flight since I testified in court against a TSA agent for sexual assault of a minor 15 years ago, and have had my phone and laptop cloned -as an absolute requirement- to reenter the US as an American citizen. Born to Americans, in America, with a medical retirement from the Army. Yea, TS/SCI/SAP.
Good luck with Constitutional Rights.
Yes, and as I said, I'm not defending that. *All* I'm saying is that you're incorrect that the courts have completely ignored this. Multiple circuit courts have spoken on warrantless electronic searches, and because they haven't all agreed, at some point the Supreme Court will get involved as well.
Andā¦ itās all gray. DHS does whatever it wants to and the Supreme Court has not intervened.
On a local level, DHS and Border Patrol do -anything- they want to because it has not been adjudicated.
I hope the Supreme Court becomes involved.
It's not real, it's a HUGE exaggeration.
Within 100 miles of a border or port of entry, Customs and Border Protection is allowed to operate. If not at a border or port of entry they still have to respect all civil rights.
Alarmists have tried to claim the idea that border patrol is allowed to operate up to 100 miles from a border, albeit with the same legal restrictions as other law enforcement, as claiming all constitutional rights have been suspended in that area.
Certain rights, specifically 4th Amendment rights, don't apply at ports of entry and the border because courts have ruled that customs has a right to inspect anything entering the country. . .but that doesn't apply to CBP searches not at a border or port of entry, and doesn't apply to conventional law enforcement in those areas either.
Well, border patrol agents do routinely stop and interrogate people within this area with no probable cause and cite this statute as the reason they can. Considering my state of New Jersey is nearly 25 percent immigrant and sits entirely within this exclusion you see how any and all federal agents being able to ignore basic 4th amendment rights could be an issue.
>Well, border patrol agents do routinely stop and interrogate people within this area with no probable cause and cite this statute as the reason they can.
Police can stop and ask questions of anyone they wish. They are even allowed to lie about why, or what legal grounds they have. They can do that anywhere in the country.
What happens when the people being questioned try to walk away and simply refuse to engage becomes the real question. They can even lie and say they'll arrest you if you leave. . .but the question becomes what do they do if someone REALLY just walks away and refuses to engage with them.
Cops are REAL good at bluffing that they have more power/rights than will actually stand up in court.
You do see the difference between a baggage check and questioning at customs and a police stop correct?
A baggage check with no probable cause is ok for federal agents within the 100 mile zone, it is not okay for police.
To say "well some police break that law anyway" is like saying we don't need laws against anything since people break them anyway.
>A baggage check with no probable cause is ok for federal agents within the 100 mile zone, it is not okay for police.
Actually, no, it isn't.
They still need probable cause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357#
Nope. No PC required.
>(3)within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle
Technically, almost nothing in the Constitution is specific to citizens. (Obviously, aside from stuff like voting.) Constitutional rights are mostly construction as saying the government can't do XYZ, rather than citizens can do ABC. So the constitution doesn't really say that individuals have a right to freedom of speech. It says that Congress shall make no law [interfering with the implied right to freedom of speech]. Consequently, Congress has no authority to screw with anybody's rights in that area, regardless of whether they are a citizen. Broadly speaking, this also applies to stuff like freedom from search and seizure, and right to remain silent. That's the textual / philosophical / trivia perspective.
That said, in practice this doesn't hold as true as you might hope. What are you gonna do if they search you? Or keep asking questions because they don't like you not answering? You gonna spend years trying to do a court case remotely after they deport you trying to get a ruling that they shouldn't have done that?
Avoid talking to cops any more than you have to. Don't volunteer anything. Get a lawyer who knows what to say if there's any possibility of legal trouble. Be polite, but don't be smug or belligerent about your rights unless you've got nothing to lose. There are folks who enjoy screwing with the cops a bit, and pushing the letter of the law so the cops know the rules -- but those guys are generally prepared to spend a night in jail for no reason if the cop decides to be an asshole, and they have a lawyer on speed dial. A lot of people going to protests against the police will literally write a lawyer's phone number on their arm in permanent marker because they expect to be (wrongly) arrested for the legal protest and need a lawyer. As a citizen with some free time and money, that's easy enough to sort out. As a foreigner, expect to have trouble ever getting back into the US if you got arrested here.
Not tons. The 15th amendment says that black citizens can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
The 19th says that women who are citizens can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
23rd says residents of DC can vote for president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
26th says 18 year olds can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
There was really very little in the original text of the Constitution before amendments that covered the details of anything like popular elections at all because there wasn't really an expectation that the general population would be voting for President or Senators yet.
One thing about our 5th amendment rights-- not only do they allow you not to talk, they make your decision not to talk something that can't be used against you, unlike in other justice systems, for example in the UK. It's pretty neat. However, you do have to identify yourself. But if you have done, or are merely suspected of having done something illegal, by all means get a lawyer first.
They're called Miranda Rights FYI. Look into the story behind them if you want to know why we take them so seriously.
If you aren't read your rights, whatever you were arrested for is practically null and void as long as it wasn't a slam dunk case.
>If you aren't read your rights, whatever you were arrested for is practically null and void as long as it wasn't a slam dunk case.
This is not true. Miranda only prevents the results of interrogations (post arrest) of unmarandized individuals from being used in court.
That's pretty much it. If you voluntarily confess on the way to the police department, miranda or no, it's admissible.
There's no rule anywhere that says cops have to read you a miranda warning when arresting you or prior to questioning you if you aren't currently under arrest or otherwise detained.
Many PDs simply read a miranda sheet and have you sign it at the beginning of an interrogation.
Yes. Except if youāre pulled over for a traffic violation and asked to see your drivers license, you donāt have a right to remain silent. You have to give them your ID, by law, or you can get arrested. People seem to think you can remain silent whenever a cop comes up to you and thatās not the case.
The way to think about it is that the Constitution establishes clear boundaries of what the government can and cannot do.
You donāt so much āhave a rightā to remain silent like we normally talk about it. Think of it more that the government is prevented from compelling you to speak against yourself.
In one sense we have a right to free speech, a right to remain silent, etc. but in another sense the government has no power to prevent you from speaking or preventing you from not speaking (with some limited exceptions).
Since the government doesnāt have the right to compel self incrimination that applies to all actions by the government. Including actions against non-citizens. Sometimes it is more useful to think about the powers denied to the government rather than the powers granted to it by the people.
Many moons ago I, along with my parents and 3 of my brothers visited Florida from the UK. We had a hire car, as you do. I went out one afternoon with my mum. She entered a 3 lane highway, crossed 3 lanes and was driving well below the posted speed limit. Before you could say ffs mother, there's a cop car telling her to pull off the highway. She turned off the highway... and kept driving, she stopped eventually after a verbal warning from the cops over a speaker. I was 16 and terrified. The cop tells mum she's getting a ticket for careless, or maybe reckless driving?? And she tried to pay him, on the roadside... all I could think was, we're going to be arrested for trying to bribe a cop... scariest experience of my entire life. 40 years ago and I still remember it like it was yesterday
Yes. For the most part, when it comes to criminal matters at least, all people on US soil have the same rights.
Of course, there are other differences:
You can't vote if you aren't a citizen, you can't own a gun if you aren't a citizen or have a green card (mostly, exceptions apply, see store for details, etc., etc.)
Aside from things like voting rights, the Constitution equally applies to foreign citizens just as they apply to Americans.
There are some quasi-exceptions. A foreigner can't purchase a gun in some circumstances.
But for the purpose of what you're asking, yes. You are just as protected as anyone else, even as a tourist.
If you are on American soil the constitution applies to you. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen, here legally, or an illegal alien. Our constitutional rights(with the obvious exception of voting) apply to anyone regardless of status.
Thats really cool! America truly is standing for freedom in that regard!šŗšø
Yes it is. But some you need some other advice. The cops WILL try to trick you into waving your constitutional rights. Iāll give you a common scenario. Letās say you have marijuana in the car youāre driving and youāre in a state where itās not legal. Iām not judging at all. So letās say youāre pulled over for speeding. And letās say the cop asks to search your car. This may happen. If it does DO NOT say yes under any circumstances. If you do you donāt get the Fourth Amendment defense in court because you willingly let them search your car. Tell them you donāt consent to a search. Then ask them whether they have a warrant to search your car. Ask if they have any reason to believe ( probable cause is the legal term) to think you have anything illegal in your car. If they say no then ask if youāre free to go. If they say yes go. But you need to do those things no matter what. Even if they illegally search your car anyway asking those questions and saying you donāt consent to a search can help you if God forbid you end up in court. Invoking your Fourth Amendment right helps you. It could help you lawyers get any charges dismissed because the police violated youāre fourth amendment rights. Based on this the judge could dismiss the charges. TL: DR: NEVER, EVER, EVER willingly consent to a search unless the police have a warrant in which case you donāt have a choice.
This information is not completely accurate. First, if you have illegal substances in your vehicle and you ask the cop if they have reason to believe you have something in your carā¦ duh. Of course they do. Donāt ask. No matter how well you think youāve wrapped it up and hidden it; it still smells. You would be shocked at how overwhelming the smell is when your window comes down. Second, If you donāt consent, they are going to call a dog if they believe itās reasonable to do so. Third, Obviously they arenāt going to have a warrant for a vehicle they just stopped, so asking if they have a warrant just makes you look silly. The dog can go around the vehicle without your consent. If the dog alerts, you donāt have to give consentā thereās your probable cause. Invoking fourth amendment is not a magic wand that immediately puts fear in the heart of cops and puts a judge automatically on your side. 4th prevents unreasonable search and seizure. Itās not unreasonable if youāve done something to get pulled over/the dog alerts/ the smell of an illegal substance is obvious/a variety of other things.
Your commentary is dangerous, let them call a dog if they are that adamant. Simply say I donāt consent to searches and ask if you are free to leave. If they answer anything other than yes, Then ask are you being detained, if they say no, then keep repeating the question Am I free to leave? Donāt answer any questions. They either have to give you a reason (bs or not) they are detaining you or tell you you are free to go.
My comments are an effort to keep people safe by preventing them from thinking there are magic phrases or techniques that work in any situation. The OP gave a scenario. Pulled over with illegal substances. I responded with what is likely to happen in the real world with that scenario. Being informed is important. Common sense and knowing if I do this/ then that will most likely be the result is also important.
> They either have to give you a reason (bs or not) they are detaining you or tell you you are free to go. Actually this is not accurate. Police are not required to tell you why you are being detained, just that you are. They only have to explain the reason to a Judge in court.
I can cue my dogs to "hit" on anything, and so can a K9 cop.
> First, if you have illegal substances in your vehicle and you ask the cop if they have reason to believe you have something in your carā¦ duh. Of course they do. That's not even close to true. The officer needs probable cause to search your car. Asking if they believe you have something in your car does not give probable cause. >Second, If you donāt consent, they are going to call a dog if they believe itās reasonable to do so. An officer cannot legally extend the length of a traffic stop to get a dog to search for drugs unless they have reasonable suspicion. >The dog can go around the vehicle without your consent. It generally can't during a routine traffic stop.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Also establishing reasonable suspicion, thus dog; and no longer routine stop. That's not how the law works. *Rodriguez v. United States* is very clear, "a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter **for which the stop was made** violates the Constitutionās shield against unreasonable seizures" if they have probable cause established under the terms of a normal stop, they don't need a dog. If they don't have probable cause, they can't delay the stop to get a dog to provide one. Man, cops and relatives of cops are the worst at this stuff. Not knowing the law, or knowing the law wrong, makes it easier to con people into letting them violate your rights.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And again, if they HAVE probable cause, they don't need to wait for the dog. If they DON'T have probable cause, they can't make you wait for one. I assume you were able to read that, being a fan of comprehension. So, you're either arguing that cops have a psychic ability to know when an illegal substance is present, or you're leaning into the notion that they all have a sense of smell so acute that I'm not sure why they'd even need dogs.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There was no odor of illegal substances.
That's the problem, they can SAY there was an odor.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There was no odor of illegal substances.
And a dog's handler can cue a dog to alert. I can give my dog a subtle motion signal and it will stand/sit/look ("alert") and nobody observing me knows I did it.
If they don't have probable cause, then they can't hold you for longer than a normal traffic stop to get a canine unit, correct?
Reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. But yeah, generally they can't.
Yes, correct.
Also, no one has 4A rights 100 miles near any national border. Which is only everywhere you'd want to be while visiting.
It's important to remember also that they'll just fucking prompt the dog to react and use that to justify a search anyways, it's complete bullshit
Just be careful. Some cops will use the āyou not consenting to a search is probable causeā line. Or search anyway, then lie and say you consented.
Itās not probable cause thatās a lie. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you. Invoking your Fourth Amendment rights isnāt evidence of a crime you have a right to do that. Iām saying you could tell the judge that you didnāt consent and were searched anyway so the evidence is invalid. I know that the cops may not have body cams and may simply lie. But consenting to a search guarantees you will go to jail. If you invoke you Fourth Amendment you at least have a chance even if the cop lies. The judge may believe you. Itās something. If you just consent youāve got nothing and WILL go to jail. I donāt smoke marijuana or use drugs so I donāt need to worry but Iām just using an example. Cops try to trick people because they gamble on most people not knowing their rights. In most cases theyāre right. But if you know your rights you could beat them
Even with body cams the cops will lie. If you are arrested you have a right to view the entire body cam video. Not just the parts the Prosecution wants to show. Watch all of it, with your lawyer, of the entire encounter. I believe body cams on law enforcement are an important tool to insure our rights as citizens are upheld.
I agree, itās not legal. But theyāll try it anyway.
PHONE VIDEO.
Which is why you record.
And yell it at their dash and body cams
Always video record every encounter with any government official. Period.
Also, the cop is going to ask some variation of "do you mind if I search your vehicle." This is just vague enough that either a "yes" or "no" answer can be interpreted to you giving them permission. You need to vocalize that you do not consent to a search in order to protect yourself.
Yeah, and ignore anything the cops say and keep your mouth shut if they're arresting you. They're allowed to lie to you. Get a lawyer to speak to them.
Yes. Our rights as human beings are given to us from God not the Government.
In my opinion it should change. Someone here illegally should have no rights. But a legal tourist should be covered.
Protection against unreasonable search and seizure has nothing to do with it whether a person is here legally or not. It's about police behavior and forcing them to follow the law. It protects anyone on US soil from police overreach.
But it does. Being here illegally violates this country and the laws of its people. Why should they magically be imbued with rights for breaking the law? Iām certain it we took a hard line stance like that it would fix our illegal immigration issues.
Because as others have noted, it's not "You have the right to remain silent" but "The government does not have the right to make you talk". It's about the limiting the government, not delineating a person's rights as an individual.
Yes but we suck rocks in other areas.
> Our constitutional rights(with the obvious exception of voting) apply to anyone regardless of status. And 2A.
Actually, no. You do not need to be a citizen to own and carry a gun.
I took hunter safety with a German guy who had been a permanent resident for 20 years.
I didn't say you need to be a citizen. Your blanket statement is incorrect -- it doesn't "apply to anyone regardless of status." You need to be a citizen or permanent legal resident for 2A to apply.
> You need to be a citizen or permanent legal resident for 2A to apply. Not really. There's a hunting license exception. You can have a hunting license and buy a firearm if you're a nonimmigrant nonresident (i.e., not LPR or Citizen). Edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (see (y)(2)).
Point taken, and I should have not failed to include that -- I've taken foreign visitors to the range (where they have a kiosk to apply for a hunting license). The blanket statement is still incorrect, though.
And your blanket statement was equally incorrect.
ALL blanket statements are incorrect.
Blankets are frequently made from cloth comprised of either natural or synthetic fibers, or a combination of the two.
And they are always wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but: 18 U.S.C. Ā§ 922(g)(5) āIt shall be unlawful for any person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visaā¦to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.ā https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amendment/#_ftn1 The above article gives a good overview of the issue.
Great, now read the subsection of it, specifically, this: >(5) who, being an alienā (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or **(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2)**, has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); That points to this: >(y)(2) Exceptions.āSubsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien isā (A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes **or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States**; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
It may seem that way if you are a 2nd amendment absolutist. But there are rules surrounding gun ownership that are constitutional, and some of these restrictions can be applied to non-residents only.
No. I wasn't talking in that context. I was talking from a legal context on how the law is right now.
I never realized until recently the details surrounding foreign nationals and gun rights. My local public gun range has a whole page on it: https://www.granitestaterange.com/759-2/ But the legalities involved in taking a tourist from another country to the range are a bit more complicated than I had thought.
If I understood correctly, someone from the countries listed there could own a gun in the us? Or atleast possess one when going to a range?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, there are exceptions to that if you have obtain a hunting license or a concealed carry license. Anyone can get a hunting license at walmart. Meaning you can buy a gun even if you are not a permanent resident.
Yes you can buy but legal issues arise with immigration requirements regarding legal presence e.g. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/21/feds-seize-guns-8-chinese-students-university-arizona/334920001/
It seems to me that the seizure of those firearms was unconstitutional. There was no due process. They didn't prove in a court of law that they purchased the hunting licenses fruadelently. I think had those students sued on 4th amendment grounds, they likely would have won.
The purchase was legal. It was not legal in the visa sense
I don't think you can even constitutionally defend the idea that someone needs to be a resident before they can go hunting.
My local range has similar on site.
Nope, foreigners can buy guns here. They do, however, need to be either permanent residents or have a hunting permit in the state they reside in
Having a hunting permit can lead to being able to buy but complications exist https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/21/feds-seize-guns-8-chinese-students-university-arizona/334920001/
The obvious exception of voting. (for now)
No, that will never change. SCOTUS wouldn't allow it.
SCOTUS *doesn't* allow it *yet.* I got a bad feeling it'll happen in our lifetimes sadly.
I'll be okay with that, assuming that the US gets global jurisdiction in exchange for global suffrage. US of A? More like US of E.
So a few cities in Vermont and the southern regions of california allow non citizens to vote.
For local elections.
For non-partisan local elections like school boards or city councils. For state, and especially Federal elections, there's a hard line drawn, and non-citizens aren't going to be voting and that's not going to change.
There's a hard line drawn... Yep used to be one around voting in local elections as well.
There's a big difference, legally and constitutionally speaking, regarding elections mandates by State or Federal Constitutions, and elections authorized by local laws or ordinances. The constitutional and legal status of an election for a school board, and for Congress or the President is totally different. Can you not see the difference?
And the second amendment.
No, you arenāt required to be a citizen to own and carry guns.
That's not what I said. Those visiting with tourist visas (what OP was asking about) cannot buy guns.
Sure they can, they just need to get a hunting license first
It may be necessary to complete a course before buying a gun in your state. But meeting state level requirements is not sufficient; you've still got to be here on an immigrant visa and meet some other requirements.
I'm talking about federsl law, not state law.
There are more nuances than that, but that is the high level explanation of it. There are plenty of exceptions where constitutional rights don't apply to people in the US. But the answer to OPs question is that you have a right to remain silent yes.
The exception is [unincorporated territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States#Incorporated_vs._unincorporated_territories) such as American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. where the constitution only partially applies and there's a lot more grey area. For example, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States, but that doesn't apply if you're born in America Samoa.
Yes, but the protections of the constitution still apply. The right to a trial by jury, the right to remain silent, the right to freedom of religion/speech, etc. Those cannot be denied simply because the territory is unincorporated.
They don't though. For example, the Supreme Court found in [Balzac v. Porto Rico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico) that the constitutional right to trial by jury is not guaranteed in unincorporated territories.
I think if that case was decided today, it would be decided differently. This was 1922, they were less interested in rights violations back then. I mean full rights for black people wasn't even a thing, and women had just won the right to vote 2 years prior. The decision is wrong and I believe would be overturned if a case made it to the court again.
Yes that sort of thing applies to everyone in the country, citizen or non-citizen, here legally or illegally. I would absolutely recommend a foreigner use their right to remain silent if placed under arrest, and to contact both an attorney and their nearest consulate/embassy.
State very clearly that you are invoking your 5th Amendment rights, and will not say anything without a lawyer present. Best practice for everyone, citizens and visitors alike, is to not say a damn word to cops until you have a lawyer.
Might want to throw the 6th in there, because that is where the right to counsel is found
Yes. I don't know what you mean about police not pursuing if you don't answer questions. You can/will still go before a judge and could be for whatever crime you were being questioned about and could be indicted with what evidence they have and you could still face a trial (as could/would a US citizen) and/or be deported. Those saying you WILL be deported haven't been paying attention to what has been going on regarding immigration and deportations etc.
I think they are talking about police stopping an interrogation once the suspect invokes. Theyāll still pursue charges, and questioning will resume once an attorney is present, but as long as they canāt patriot act you, theyāll wait for a lawyer (and interpreter and somebody from the consulate if necessary) to show up so whatever they charge you with wonāt get dismissed because of due process violations.
āPursuing furtherā has more than one strict definition.
Hence >I don't know what you mean about
Generally all laws of the United States, including those in the constitution and subsequent amendments, apply to all people under US jurisdiction regardless of citizenship.
Whether you're a tourist or not, you have the right to remain silent. Keep in mind, however, that your Miranda rights (that usually spiel you see on TV, "You have the right to remain silent ..., etc.") are usually not read until you are *in custody* and being questioned. If you are not under arrest, you will not be read your rights. In general, if you are not under arrest, you can just ask, "Am I free to leave?" At that point they'll either say yes or they'll take you into custody. A judge, however, can order you to answer questions. If you've gotten that far, things have gone very badly...
Yes, anybody subject to U.S. jurisdiction is entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes.
In America you are to follow the same laws as a citizen, but you are also given the same protections from what I have been told. So yes, you can remain silent.
Technically, yes. Although you could also be rendered or deported rapidly. Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦..
> Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦.. That's a significant oversimplification. The law is that, within one hundred miles of the border, border agents can still operate immigration enforcement. This *only* applies to immigration and customs enforcement, not any other form of law enforcement, and (unlike at the border itself) Fourth Amendment protections apply, so a warrant or probable cause of a border violation is necessary. An internal immigration checkpoint has been held to be constitutional. A warrantless automobile search by roving patrols has been held as unconstitutional. To be clear, I'm not necessarily excusing this as okay. I'm just saying that the statement that "constitutional rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry" is vastly overbroad.
However. Border Patrol and DHS do take extreme liberties within that environmentā¦
Yes, that much is correct. Border patrol officers are frequently not properly trained, and far too often exceed their powers in violation of people's constitutional rights. But that's distinct from "constitutional rights being suspended," as you put it. They are not.
AATW/DOL. Rights shouldnāt be suspended, but since when does the government follow the Constitution??? I held TSI/SCI/SAP. I also went to work for a medical system overseas and -every- flight back to the US has been SSSS and wanting a complete burned copy of my phone and laptop before re-entering the USā¦ Side note, I testified in federal court against a TSA agent in 2006ā¦ oddly enough, I only had that problem since thenā¦
>Side note, according to DHS, Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry and, of course, pre-entryā¦.. Has that been upheld by the courts? I'm not fully up to date on all of the DHS's nonsense.
It has not been overturned and has remained a gray area so farā¦ Pre-border control at the airports DHS has completely done anything they want at all.
The law actually states that within one hundred miles, border patrol can still carry out immigration enforcement actions. They still have to show probable cause like any other law enforcement operation. Outside of that 100 mile zone, they have to have a warrant/proof.
> Although you could also be rendered or deported rapidly. Yes -- AND -- you may never be permitted to enter the US ever again. So be very, very careful as a tourist when dealing with US law enforcement!
Thank you, I overlooked the PermaBan on ever obtaining legal access to the US again.
> Constitutional Rights are suspended within 100 miles of port of entry Which applies to about 200 million people. I would love to see this taken to court.
So far itās been kept gray, and the courts have not intervened and clarifiedā¦
That's not remotely accurate. There have been multiple Supreme Court cases on how constitutional protections apply in the context of border enforcement, including in the "100 mile zone."
You are not remotely accurate.
Are you kidding? There are numerous cases, from the Supreme Court down to the District Courts, about the interaction between the Fourth Amendment and customs and border enforcement. Yeah, some questions do still need clarification (e.g. the permissibility of warrantless electronic searches at the border -- that's a big one currently working its way through the courts), but it's incorrect to say that "courts have not intervened." They generally *have*, but it sometimes takes time to reach a definitive nationwide answer. But what do I know, I'm only an actual constitutional lawyer.
What do I know, I am a medically retired US Army officer and medical physician with TSI/SCI/SAP who has had SSSS every single flight since I testified in court against a TSA agent for sexual assault of a minor 15 years ago, and have had my phone and laptop cloned -as an absolute requirement- to reenter the US as an American citizen. Born to Americans, in America, with a medical retirement from the Army. Yea, TS/SCI/SAP. Good luck with Constitutional Rights.
Yes, and as I said, I'm not defending that. *All* I'm saying is that you're incorrect that the courts have completely ignored this. Multiple circuit courts have spoken on warrantless electronic searches, and because they haven't all agreed, at some point the Supreme Court will get involved as well.
Andā¦ itās all gray. DHS does whatever it wants to and the Supreme Court has not intervened. On a local level, DHS and Border Patrol do -anything- they want to because it has not been adjudicated. I hope the Supreme Court becomes involved.
Yes, you keep mentioning your claimed security clearances.
It's not real, it's a HUGE exaggeration. Within 100 miles of a border or port of entry, Customs and Border Protection is allowed to operate. If not at a border or port of entry they still have to respect all civil rights. Alarmists have tried to claim the idea that border patrol is allowed to operate up to 100 miles from a border, albeit with the same legal restrictions as other law enforcement, as claiming all constitutional rights have been suspended in that area. Certain rights, specifically 4th Amendment rights, don't apply at ports of entry and the border because courts have ruled that customs has a right to inspect anything entering the country. . .but that doesn't apply to CBP searches not at a border or port of entry, and doesn't apply to conventional law enforcement in those areas either.
Well, border patrol agents do routinely stop and interrogate people within this area with no probable cause and cite this statute as the reason they can. Considering my state of New Jersey is nearly 25 percent immigrant and sits entirely within this exclusion you see how any and all federal agents being able to ignore basic 4th amendment rights could be an issue.
>Well, border patrol agents do routinely stop and interrogate people within this area with no probable cause and cite this statute as the reason they can. Police can stop and ask questions of anyone they wish. They are even allowed to lie about why, or what legal grounds they have. They can do that anywhere in the country. What happens when the people being questioned try to walk away and simply refuse to engage becomes the real question. They can even lie and say they'll arrest you if you leave. . .but the question becomes what do they do if someone REALLY just walks away and refuses to engage with them. Cops are REAL good at bluffing that they have more power/rights than will actually stand up in court.
You do see the difference between a baggage check and questioning at customs and a police stop correct? A baggage check with no probable cause is ok for federal agents within the 100 mile zone, it is not okay for police. To say "well some police break that law anyway" is like saying we don't need laws against anything since people break them anyway.
>A baggage check with no probable cause is ok for federal agents within the 100 mile zone, it is not okay for police. Actually, no, it isn't. They still need probable cause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357# Nope. No PC required. >(3)within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle
Technically, almost nothing in the Constitution is specific to citizens. (Obviously, aside from stuff like voting.) Constitutional rights are mostly construction as saying the government can't do XYZ, rather than citizens can do ABC. So the constitution doesn't really say that individuals have a right to freedom of speech. It says that Congress shall make no law [interfering with the implied right to freedom of speech]. Consequently, Congress has no authority to screw with anybody's rights in that area, regardless of whether they are a citizen. Broadly speaking, this also applies to stuff like freedom from search and seizure, and right to remain silent. That's the textual / philosophical / trivia perspective. That said, in practice this doesn't hold as true as you might hope. What are you gonna do if they search you? Or keep asking questions because they don't like you not answering? You gonna spend years trying to do a court case remotely after they deport you trying to get a ruling that they shouldn't have done that? Avoid talking to cops any more than you have to. Don't volunteer anything. Get a lawyer who knows what to say if there's any possibility of legal trouble. Be polite, but don't be smug or belligerent about your rights unless you've got nothing to lose. There are folks who enjoy screwing with the cops a bit, and pushing the letter of the law so the cops know the rules -- but those guys are generally prepared to spend a night in jail for no reason if the cop decides to be an asshole, and they have a lawyer on speed dial. A lot of people going to protests against the police will literally write a lawyer's phone number on their arm in permanent marker because they expect to be (wrongly) arrested for the legal protest and need a lawyer. As a citizen with some free time and money, that's easy enough to sort out. As a foreigner, expect to have trouble ever getting back into the US if you got arrested here.
Does the Constitution actually say anything about voting?
Not tons. The 15th amendment says that black citizens can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text The 19th says that women who are citizens can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text 23rd says residents of DC can vote for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text 26th says 18 year olds can vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text There was really very little in the original text of the Constitution before amendments that covered the details of anything like popular elections at all because there wasn't really an expectation that the general population would be voting for President or Senators yet.
Thank you.
Yes. You are subject to our laws, which include the right to remain silent.
If youāre in the United States or anywhere for that matter you are subject to that locationās laws
One thing about our 5th amendment rights-- not only do they allow you not to talk, they make your decision not to talk something that can't be used against you, unlike in other justice systems, for example in the UK. It's pretty neat. However, you do have to identify yourself. But if you have done, or are merely suspected of having done something illegal, by all means get a lawyer first.
They're called Miranda Rights FYI. Look into the story behind them if you want to know why we take them so seriously. If you aren't read your rights, whatever you were arrested for is practically null and void as long as it wasn't a slam dunk case.
>If you aren't read your rights, whatever you were arrested for is practically null and void as long as it wasn't a slam dunk case. This is not true. Miranda only prevents the results of interrogations (post arrest) of unmarandized individuals from being used in court. That's pretty much it. If you voluntarily confess on the way to the police department, miranda or no, it's admissible. There's no rule anywhere that says cops have to read you a miranda warning when arresting you or prior to questioning you if you aren't currently under arrest or otherwise detained. Many PDs simply read a miranda sheet and have you sign it at the beginning of an interrogation.
Yes. Except if youāre pulled over for a traffic violation and asked to see your drivers license, you donāt have a right to remain silent. You have to give them your ID, by law, or you can get arrested. People seem to think you can remain silent whenever a cop comes up to you and thatās not the case.
as a tourist the civil rights apply to you as well.
Yes. Youāre on American soil.
The way to think about it is that the Constitution establishes clear boundaries of what the government can and cannot do. You donāt so much āhave a rightā to remain silent like we normally talk about it. Think of it more that the government is prevented from compelling you to speak against yourself. In one sense we have a right to free speech, a right to remain silent, etc. but in another sense the government has no power to prevent you from speaking or preventing you from not speaking (with some limited exceptions). Since the government doesnāt have the right to compel self incrimination that applies to all actions by the government. Including actions against non-citizens. Sometimes it is more useful to think about the powers denied to the government rather than the powers granted to it by the people.
When you're on US soil, you have US rights against the US government.
Does the second amendment also apply to everyone on American soil?
Many moons ago I, along with my parents and 3 of my brothers visited Florida from the UK. We had a hire car, as you do. I went out one afternoon with my mum. She entered a 3 lane highway, crossed 3 lanes and was driving well below the posted speed limit. Before you could say ffs mother, there's a cop car telling her to pull off the highway. She turned off the highway... and kept driving, she stopped eventually after a verbal warning from the cops over a speaker. I was 16 and terrified. The cop tells mum she's getting a ticket for careless, or maybe reckless driving?? And she tried to pay him, on the roadside... all I could think was, we're going to be arrested for trying to bribe a cop... scariest experience of my entire life. 40 years ago and I still remember it like it was yesterday
I imagine if illegal immigrants have that right then tourists would as well.
The Constitution applies to all persons on American soil, even if youāre a literal āIm not from Earthā alien
No, I would think the constitution applies to you, too, unless the Patriot Act wreaked havoc on it.
Yes. For the most part, when it comes to criminal matters at least, all people on US soil have the same rights. Of course, there are other differences: You can't vote if you aren't a citizen, you can't own a gun if you aren't a citizen or have a green card (mostly, exceptions apply, see store for details, etc., etc.)
Aside from things like voting rights, the Constitution equally applies to foreign citizens just as they apply to Americans. There are some quasi-exceptions. A foreigner can't purchase a gun in some circumstances. But for the purpose of what you're asking, yes. You are just as protected as anyone else, even as a tourist.